 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8324
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
 Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 9:01 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Flashman wrote: | | God haters began to... |
You shouldn't think of things in this way. With the exception of maybe satanists, there are no 'God haters' around. You're really talking about people who believe that politics should be a secular affair. They don't hate God! In fact, there are many, many Christians who believe that government should be totally secular. Some of them post on this board, and I'll bet they wouldn't appreciate your slur. Your label is not accurate, and it shows that you have a lot of contempt which has no place in Jesus' teachings.
(I'm as atheistic as they come, and even I don't hate God; I just don't believe that He exists.)
| Flashman wrote: |
The insanity continues today. |
It's not insanity. The idea of secular government is one of the greatest ideas that Western Civilization has ever come up with. It's why we control this planet, and it's why all western countries give its citizens religious freedom.
If you are against a completely secular government, then you haven't really thought things through; you don't realize what you'd lose if your government weren't secular.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Flashman
Pit Bull
Joined: 28 Apr 2006
Posts: 371
Location: MO
|
| Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 9:10 pm Post subject: Re: seperation of church and state |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Flashman wrote: |
I'm specifically referring the the word "never". With all the governments in all the world, I'm thinking there probably has been an instance. I get your vein here, but I've seen you and others hang people by the same thread, so I just want to make sure that you are ready for an eventual case which may, or may not, arise.  |
I'm not talking about all the governments on the planet; I'm just talking about the U.S. government. I find it very hard to believe that anyone could possibly be prosecuted as we described, since the case would immediately be dismissed on constitutional grounds. |
There we go. Thanks for your personal clarification. I've seen a lot of very unconstitutional things go into our Supreme Court as a sure victory and come out with even both sets of lawyers scratching their heads. Our Supreme Court's decisions are just as perverted as some of the silly cases being decided in all our courts.
Having said that, I also offer that depending upon the political makeup of the court, the Constitution will be "interpreted" in varying degrees from a different combination of Supremes. I can read the Constitution much better than they can [in my humble opinion].
How many teachers have been either sacked or threatened with prosecution for sharing their beliefs with other professors, teachers or students? There may have been some actual prosecutions. It seems I remember a case or two. How many people have been jailed for their "religious" convictions? Nay-sayers will say, "None that I know of." How many people has the government killed because of their "religious" beliefs? God-haters will say, "Now, they had that comin'!"
If there is a separation it's very clear that the Constitution means to keep the government out of the affairs of the people who wish to worship their God, the manner in which they wish to display (or not display) it, and that there is to be no law in their expression. Even if they wish to display in on the one-dollar-bill...and do!
_________________
You may not believe in God, but He believes in you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Flashman
Pit Bull
Joined: 28 Apr 2006
Posts: 371
Location: MO
|
| Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 9:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Flashman wrote: | | God haters began to... |
You shouldn't think of things in this way. With the exception of maybe satanists, there are no 'God haters' around. You're really talking about people who believe that politics should be a secular affair. They don't hate God! In fact, there are many, many Christians who believe that government should be totally secular. Some of them post on this board, and I'll bet they wouldn't appreciate your slur. Your label is not accurate, and it shows that you have a lot of contempt which has no place in Jesus' teachings.
(I'm as atheistic as they come, and even I don't hate God; I just don't believe that He exists.)
| Flashman wrote: |
The insanity continues today. |
It's not insanity. The idea of secular government is one of the greatest ideas that Western Civilization has ever come up with. It's why we control this planet, and it's why all western countries give its citizens religious freedom.
If you are against a completely secular government, then you haven't really thought things through; you don't realize what you'd lose if your government weren't secular. |
It's not the secularity of the government (state) I'm speaking to. It's the idea that if 51% (if you like the idea of a democracy) want "In God We Trust" on our money, or the Ten Commandments in our courtrooms, or creation AND evolution choices in public schools...then we should get it, shouldn't we? A God-hating minority are so vocal that they shout down those who feel that way; and are afraid of "religious" persecution so they don't stand up and make their vote count. Or they will lose a government benefit, so they can't be express their true beliefs.
I have thought it through very much. I love a secular government, but I'd love it more if the secular government wasn't anti-Christian.
_________________
You may not believe in God, but He believes in you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Flashman
Pit Bull
Joined: 28 Apr 2006
Posts: 371
Location: MO
|
| Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
P, having stated the above, I do realize that we don't want a "religious" government. God forbid. And that's not what I'm advocating.
I think you know that from my tyrade 
And for the record, you and I know the word "hate" in different lights. The word "hate" has also been perverted to mean "loathe", which is incorrect.
Hate is more of an ambivilance with a purpose if that makes sense.
_________________
You may not believe in God, but He believes in you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8324
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 9:28 pm Post subject: Re: seperation of church and state |
|
|
| Flashman wrote: |
Having said that, I also offer that depending upon the political makeup of the court, the Constitution will be "interpreted" in varying degrees from a different combination of Supremes. I can read the Constitution much better than they can [in my humble opinion].
|
No you can't, because you're not a handful of judges with multiple backgrounds. The strength of the supreme court is that has a bunch of judges sitting on it. That way no single judge's biases can shine through. If all of the judges had the same opinions, or if you (or any one person) were allowed to be in charge of it, the results would be disasterous.
| Flashman wrote: |
How many teachers have been either sacked or threatened with prosecution for sharing their beliefs with other professors, teachers or students? There may have been some actual prosecutions. It seems I remember a case or two. How many people have been jailed for their "religious" convictions? Nay-sayers will say, "None that I know of." How many people has the government killed because of their "religious" beliefs? |
Start citing examples. Otherwise, what you're saying sounds pretty far-fetched.
| Flashman wrote: |
God-haters will say, "Now, they had that comin'!"
|
It's REALLY important that you stop thinking of people who disagree with you as being God-haters. Like I said before, it's REALLY hard to find people who hate God. I'm an atheist, and even I don't hate God.
You need to really sit down and ask yourself whether it is ok for you to label people as God-haters. Do you think that Jesus would have applied such terms to people just for disagreeing with him on political issues?
| Flashman wrote: |
If there is a separation it's very clear that the Constitution means to keep the government out of the affairs of the people who wish to worship their God, the manner in which they wish to display (or not display) it, and that there is to be no law in their expression. Even if they wish to display in on the one-dollar-bill...and do! |
That's half of it. The other half of it is that the separation of church and state is designed to keep the church out of state affairs, since giving a church tons of political power inevitably corrupts and perverts the church.
Isn't it obvious that churches shouldn't have political power? They deal with spiritual matters, not worldly ones. Leave the worldly matters to lesser entities like secular governments.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Flashman
Pit Bull
Joined: 28 Apr 2006
Posts: 371
Location: MO
|
| Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 10:09 pm Post subject: Re: seperation of church and state |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Flashman wrote: |
Having said that, I also offer that depending upon the political makeup of the court, the Constitution will be "interpreted" in varying degrees from a different combination of Supremes. I can read the Constitution much better than they can [in my humble opinion].
|
No you can't, because you're not a handful of judges with multiple backgrounds. The strength of the supreme court is that has a bunch of judges sitting on it. That way no single judge's biases can shine through. If all of the judges had the same opinions, or if you (or any one person) were allowed to be in charge of it, the results would be disasterous. |
I don't want to be in charge. You are right, the results would be disastrous. But my daughter (13 - 1/2) could see that article 1 section 10 needs no interpretation. And there are many more instances. So I feel much more qualified to decide my own Constitutional destiny than 9 people who are polical appointees instead of honorable men and women. (my opinion)
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Flashman wrote: |
How many teachers have been either sacked or threatened with prosecution for sharing their beliefs with other professors, teachers or students? There may have been some actual prosecutions. It seems I remember a case or two. How many people have been jailed for their "religious" convictions? Nay-sayers will say, "None that I know of." How many people has the government killed because of their "religious" beliefs? |
Start citing examples. Otherwise, what you're saying sounds pretty far-fetched. |
(I knew you were going to say that, but I don't believe you haven't heard of them) Teacher sackings or prosecutions (which, admittedly I'm not on solid ground on yet), I'm going to have to find the names and the versus. But shall we start with Ruby Ridge and Waco on the rest of the paragraph? How about the Freemen? How about any group (religious or not) that the government views as a threat (real or not?). C'mon, you aren't that niave I know you at least better than that.
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Flashman wrote: |
God-haters will say, "Now, they had that comin'!"
|
It's REALLY important that you stop thinking of people who disagree with you as being God-haters. Like I said before, it's REALLY hard to find people who hate God. I'm an atheist, and even I don't hate God. |
I've already clarified that, but it's not me they're disagreeing with. It's the God of many millions of people. I know you are an athiest, which I think means that you are "neutral" or in my eyes, pre-Christian But that, by definition, makes you a god-hater (not a God loather). Help me find a suitable word and I'm all over it.
| P1234567890 wrote: | | You need to really sit down and ask yourself whether it is ok for you to label people as God-haters. Do you think that Jesus would have applied such terms to people just for disagreeing with him on political issues? |
(it's not just political)
I use that term only to those who hate God or what He stands for. I don't hate those whom I term (or label if you like) God haters. I like to believe I love everyone (as best I can). I don't even loathe them, tho' it'd probably be hard to tell from my frantic typing. That's one more problem I have (my problem) with those who don't understand the "language" of God. And why we who love the Lord, and would also recognize a God-hater as fast as I, get labeled as "fanatics" or "zealouts" or "a bunch of crazies". That's why the government has to keep people like me afraid of their power, and people who are blind government supporters to empower them. It's the only way they can continue to pervert the Constitution.
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Flashman wrote: |
If there is a separation it's very clear that the Constitution means to keep the government out of the affairs of the people who wish to worship their God, the manner in which they wish to display (or not display) it, and that there is to be no law in their expression. Even if they wish to display in on the one-dollar-bill...and do! |
The other half of it is that the separation of church and state is designed to keep the church out of state affairs, since giving a church tons of political power inevitably corrupts and perverts the church. |
Show me where the Constitution says that, please? I think it's very clear what it says. Here, meet me halfway. Tell me that you understand exactly what the constitution says. Please give me your "interpretation" of the article and section.
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Isn't it obvious that churches shouldn't have political power? They deal with spiritual matters, not worldly ones. Leave the worldly matters to lesser entities like secular governments. |
Churches should have ZERO, NONE, NADA, ZILCH political power, like say a political action pressure group. Churches are PEOPLE. Local expressions of the body of Christ and no more. They deal in both spiritual and worldly matters if they are doing their job. If a church is doing their job, they will influence whomever is willing to listen to hear the Word of God. If the unwilling choose not to listen, part of their job is done. I'd love to see every senator, (now read it through) every congressman, (don't quit on me now), and every Supreme Court justice a believer in Jesus Christ. (Ready?), now that doesn't make them automatically better people because we know that ain't true. But it automatically makes them accountable to God.
Realistically, that isn't going to be. However, that is merely my druthers. Now, I've got to look up the government prosecution thing, but I'd love to continue this if you still don't understand where I'm coming from.
_________________
You may not believe in God, but He believes in you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Flashman
Pit Bull
Joined: 28 Apr 2006
Posts: 371
Location: MO
|
| Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 10:30 pm Post subject: Re: seperation of church and state |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: |
That's half of it. The other half of it is that the separation of church and state is designed to keep the church out of state affairs, since giving a church tons of political power inevitably corrupts and perverts the church.
|
(pounding on this hard)
What other half? Where does this other half come from? Not from the Supreme Law of the United States of America. A nation of laws! Where can this possibly come from? (Satan?)
There is no separation of church and state per the Constitution. Again! Dude, the Constitution is so clear on this...it's to keep the STATE out of CHURCH affairs and nothing else. You had the wording reversed. One of the symptoms of the perversions I speak of.
You response could be, "Well, 9 wise Supreme Court Justices disagree with you", well that's not exactly true since there were dissenters, but now you might get my point about the Supremes and their fallibility. And why such things as the money issue (article 1 section 10 only as an example of absolute stupidity in high places).
_________________
You may not believe in God, but He believes in you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
golfjack
Lion King
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Posts: 1136
Location: arizona
|
| Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 7:48 am Post subject: reply |
|
|
The question really is separation of state and church. Somehow, they got it backwards. America is a Christian Nation that was founded under Godly principles. Christians are now winning more cases in the courts because we do have first amendment rights. This is what the ACLU says all the time, but when it comes to Christians, they say we have no rights. Shame on them. The founding fathers were only concerned that the State didn't establish a one Denomination religion. I believe Canada and Sweden have this, and the Lutheran Church is their one denomination. Of course, these countries are very liberal, and seem to think that the government should control everything. They are taxed to death.
May God bless, golfjack |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fake
Tiger
Joined: 03 May 2003
Posts: 862
|
| Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 8:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Golf, learn something about other countries before you talk
Sweden do not have a state church.
I'm not in any way near taxed to death.
Sure, I pay a bit more in taxes than you do, but in return, every child has the right to free education all the way through university, every person living in Sweden has the right to free health care, every person has the right to get assistance for living if needed, though some choose not to.
If we were truly taxed to death, how come the #6 spot of the wealthiest people of earth is held by a Swede?
How come there's 4 more Swedes in the top 87 spots of Forbes annual list?
That's 5 Swedes among the top 87 places of the richest persons in the world, and there's less than 9 million Swedes.
For the US to compete with that number, there'd need to be 160 (onehoundred and sixty) Americans among the top 87 positions.
Fake
_________________
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
“If there is a God, atheism must seem to Him as less of an insult than religion.” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1566
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 8:40 am Post subject: Re: seperation of church and state |
|
|
| Flashman wrote: | | P1234567890 wrote: |
That's half of it. The other half of it is that the separation of church and state is designed to keep the church out of state affairs, since giving a church tons of political power inevitably corrupts and perverts the church.
|
(pounding on this hard)
What other half? Where does this other half come from? Not from the Supreme Law of the United States of America. A nation of laws! Where can this possibly come from? (Satan?)
There is no separation of church and state per the Constitution. Again! Dude, the Constitution is so clear on this...it's to keep the STATE out of CHURCH affairs and nothing else. You had the wording reversed. One of the symptoms of the perversions I speak of.
|
The constitution says that "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," meaning no preference shall be made toward any particular church. So you're right, at least in the sense that members of the church and so forth can certainly be a part of congress, as long as congress doesn't actually pass any laws based on religion (because necessarily the law would prefer one religion over another).
Think on this: if church were allowed to meddle in government affairs (with gains according to law), then which church would it be? If you let one in, you have to let all the churches have equal say, because the constitution says not to prefer one over another. Different churches disagree on all kinds of political matters, though, so consider the havoc that could ensue, and also the lack of moving forward altogether.
_________________
Truth doesn't care about theology, and theology doesn't care about truth.
Ana's Bananas |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1566
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 8:50 am Post subject: Re: reply |
|
|
| golfjack wrote: | The founding fathers were only concerned that the State didn't establish a one Denomination religion. I believe Canada and Sweden have this, and the Lutheran Church is their one denomination. Of course, these countries are very liberal, and seem to think that the government should control everything. They are taxed to death.
May God bless, golfjack |
Dude, where do you get your information? We Canadians don't have the Lutheran church as our "one denomination." From my experiences in the western provinces, if anything, we are more predisposed toward Catholicism. I have more basis saying the Lutheran church is America's "one denomination," purely based on watching The Simpsons, and I still don't have a leg to stand on. Do you see where that leaves you?
_________________
Truth doesn't care about theology, and theology doesn't care about truth.
Ana's Bananas |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Flashman
Pit Bull
Joined: 28 Apr 2006
Posts: 371
Location: MO
|
| Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 9:05 am Post subject: Re: seperation of church and state |
|
|
| Ana wrote: | | Flashman wrote: | | P1234567890 wrote: |
That's half of it. The other half of it is that the separation of church and state is designed to keep the church out of state affairs, since giving a church tons of political power inevitably corrupts and perverts the church.
|
(pounding on this hard)
What other half? Where does this other half come from? Not from the Supreme Law of the United States of America. A nation of laws! Where can this possibly come from? (Satan?)
There is no separation of church and state per the Constitution. Again! Dude, the Constitution is so clear on this...it's to keep the STATE out of CHURCH affairs and nothing else. You had the wording reversed. One of the symptoms of the perversions I speak of.
|
The constitution says that "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," meaning no preference shall be made toward any particular church. So you're right, at least in the sense that members of the church and so forth can certainly be a part of congress, as long as congress doesn't actually pass any laws based on religion (because necessarily the law would prefer one religion over another).
Think on this: if church were allowed to meddle in government affairs (with gains according to law), then which church would it be? If you let one in, you have to let all the churches have equal say, because the constitution says not to prefer one over another. Different churches disagree on all kinds of political matters, though, so consider the havoc that could ensue, and also the lack of moving forward altogether. |
Ana, what is meddle? A Christian is a citizen just like a homosexual. "Religious" and secular groups already "meddle" in government affairs. In this country everyone is supposed to have equal say. Congress cannot pass a law based on any "religion" because the Constitution expressly forbids them to do so. Also, you can't get two senators or congressmen to agree on one thing, surely no other group will either. So havoc has already ensued. Moving forward to me isn't moving toward a Godless culture.
So, what's the beef? Why, after the Consitution has said the same thing (in essence) for over 230 years, is it now so important to strike down the very God that blessed us for this long by removing evidence of Him in our daily (individual and collective) lives?
It's because the Christians have had "their" way for this long and now the God-haters have found strength in a non-existant phrase in the Constitution that is perverted to mean something it doesn't. This is used to shield our school children, our accused and averyone else in this great country from God (who according to many doesn't exist anyway).
How about we take all the crosses and stars of David off the markers of the dead soldiers in Arlington Cemetary? We stop closing government offices on Easter, Thanksgiving, Christmas, Good Friday and Sundays. How about we tear down all the churches, synagogues, mosques and temples, rip up the Constitution and start over without any mention of God anywhere in our language. ...you talk about havoc.
(yes, I know that's extreme, but so is what's happening to those who have a relationship with our Savior)
_________________
You may not believe in God, but He believes in you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Flashman
Pit Bull
Joined: 28 Apr 2006
Posts: 371
Location: MO
|
| Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 9:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
P, this one is for you. I spent an hour or so doing some rudimentary research and found literally hundreds of examples where our governments (at various levels) prosecuted, persecuted fired or whatever somone expressing their beliefs.
I found VERY few cases where these things happened in the private sector. To conserve space, and to spur your own research I have purposely left off some information (such as the outcome in law or civil proceedings). I think you'll, at least, find it interesting.
There is no question that Christians are being singled out, systematically, by those who do not believe in Him, and favor given to non-believers.
I have some examples and court cites below, and only within the recent few years, where this is evident to any reasonable person.
Frye v Tarwater, 8 circuit court of appeals: Christian protesters arrested during a lawful demonstration because someone complained about the content on the signs they were holding. Christians refused to quit holding the signs and were arrested and prosecuted. Christians won.
CcConnell v. Fec (violation of constitutional rights by government actors)
Locke v. Davey (violation of constitutional rights by government actors)
Gentala v. City of Tucson (violation of civil rights by government actors)
Prince v. Jacoby, (2003) (violation of civil rights by government actors)
Kimberly Draper v Logan County Public Library- fired for wearing a cross pendant to work.
Brenda Nichol v Penns Manor Area Elementary School - suspended for one year without pay after refusing to remove a one-and-a-quarter inch cross pendant that she had been wearing on her necklace.
A federal court in Minneapolis, Minnesota has ruled that the Minnesota Department of Corrections violated the constitutional rights of three of the Department's employees when it punished them for reading their Bibles during a "Gays and Lesbians in the Workplace" training session.
Operation Rescue v. National Organization for Women, et al. (2005) - RICO unlawfully used to prosecute case against abortion protestors.
HARRISBURG, Pa. —a federal district court judge issued a declaratory judgment Monday in favor of two preachers muzzled by city officials from speaking in a public park. A jury found two police officers had violated Pastor Grove’s First Amendment rights when they arrested him to stop the two men from speaking near the homosexual PrideFest event.
A county in Virginia has cited a farmer there because he hosts Thursday night worship services in his barn on a 900-acre farm. Garland Simmons recently received a Notice of Violation from Bedford County stating that his barn cannot be used for religious services. Simmons' 900-acre piece of property apparently isn't zoned for such meetings.
_________________
You may not believe in God, but He believes in you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1566
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 9:26 am Post subject: Re: seperation of church and state |
|
|
| Flashman wrote: |
Ana, what is meddle? A Christian is a citizen just like a homosexual. "Religious" and secular groups already "meddle" in government affairs. In this country everyone is supposed to have equal say. Congress cannot pass a law based on any "religion" because the Constitution expressly forbids them to do so. Also, you can't get two senators or congressmen to agree on one thing, surely no other group will either. |
I said the same thing, so agreed.
| Flashman wrote: | | Moving forward to me isn't moving toward a Godless culture. |
Did I say that it was? Culture != government. That's why the two should be kept separate!
| Flashman wrote: |
So, what's the beef? Why, after the Consitution has said the same thing (in essence) for over 230 years, is it now so important to strike down the very God that blessed us for this long by removing evidence of Him in our daily (individual and collective) lives?
It's because the Christians have had "their" way for this long and now the God-haters have found strength in a non-existant phrase in the Constitution that is perverted to mean something it doesn't. This is used to shield our school children, our accused and averyone else in this great country from God (who according to many doesn't exist anyway). |
Wow, you are sure getting defensive about this. I wonder how you'd react if you were, say, Jewish, or Taoist, or of some other non-Christian religion. So Christians have enjoyed an unconstitutional preference for a long time. Be thankful for the time you had in the spotlight, get over it, move on, and still feel free to enjoy your faith without feeling some incessant urge to impose your beliefs on others. You can have your religion, no matter which one it is, and your neighbor can have his too. You can have this because of the constitution, not despite it.
_________________
Truth doesn't care about theology, and theology doesn't care about truth.
Ana's Bananas |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Flashman
Pit Bull
Joined: 28 Apr 2006
Posts: 371
Location: MO
|
| Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 10:04 am Post subject: Re: seperation of church and state |
|
|
| Ana wrote: |
| Flashman wrote: | | Moving forward to me isn't moving toward a Godless culture. |
Did I say that it was? Culture != government. That's why the two should be kept separate! |
You said "...moving forward..." and didn't stipulate an "exact" meaning. So that's why I said, *to me* and not *to you*. See, you seem to be able to draw a definite line between an entity like the government and those who populate it...or a group of Believers (church) and those who form that group. Somehow, those who nurture a relationship with the Lord, have to forget all about Him when they make decisions that clearly effect those whom they represent. So a Godless government body is able to run a country better than one which hold Christian values?
God imparts awesome wisdom to those whom He has placed into places of authority and who don't sell off their beliefs simply because they get pressure from a group holding opposing views. You may or may not agree, but there it is. I would much rather have a man like Billy Graham (and ther are others) running my country NOT because he is a believer and would better reflect my views, but because he is a wise and honorable man who would get his strength from God.
| Flashman wrote: |
So, what's the beef? Why, after the Consitution has said the same thing (in essence) for over 230 years, is it now so important to strike down the very God that blessed us for this long by removing evidence of Him in our daily (individual and collective) lives?
It's because the Christians have had "their" way for this long and now the God-haters have found strength in a non-existant phrase in the Constitution that is perverted to mean something it doesn't. This is used to shield our school children, our accused and averyone else in this great country from God (who according to many doesn't exist anyway). |
| Ana wrote: | | Wow, you are sure getting defensive about this. I wonder how you'd react if you were, say, Jewish, or Taoist, or of some other non-Christian religion. So Christians have enjoyed an unconstitutional preference for a long time. Be thankful for the time you had in the spotlight, get over it, move on, and still feel free to enjoy your faith without feeling some incessant urge to impose your beliefs on others. You can have your religion, no matter which one it is, and your neighbor can have his too. You can have this because of the constitution, not despite it. |
I do not get my rights from the Constitution. It even says that in the Constitution. My rights are given to me by my Creator. The Constitution is the document that created and placed limits on the government. C'mon read the thing will ya? If you think the government is where you got your rights, you are doomed to enslavement.
I defend my God for the same reason you try to disprove him. I hope I never "get over it." As long as their are people who try to pervert His word, I'm going to speak up. Ok, with you? I'm not going to argue with you in a secular fashion, because I'm not a secular being. You may object to my way of defending my King, but I'll worry about that when I kneel before Him.
_________________
You may not believe in God, but He believes in you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
